I hope this is the case (still can chain proc). I'm having trouble understanding the wording, and my first thought was also "DP now can only proc once".

English language is hard.

It just means that Divine Purpose only gets one chance to proc per cast, instead of having a chance to proc off of each target hit by Divine Storm and Light of Dawn. It can definitely still chain proc.

However, what i was referring to in the bit i quoted from underdogba implied that the value of getting more expertise before and after the soft cap of 7.5% was the same. my understanding was that it wasnt, as pre soft cap expertise removed both dodge and parry , whilst after the soft cap it just removes parry (hence was half as valuable).

It is the same, because what the expertise softcap actually means has changed.

Prior to MoP mechanics, expertise took dodges and parries off up to softcap, at which point there was no more dodge to take off and it continued to take parries off at the same rate as before, which suggests a very obvious inflection point.

The MoP implementation of expertise is that it only removes dodges up to 7.5%, then starts removing parry after 7.5%, all at exactly the same rate. There is no pre-softcap double-dip zone for dodge and parry, it's all the same all the way to hardcap with respect to the number of failed combat table resolutions converted to successful ones.

It is the same, because what the expertise softcap actually means has changed.

Prior to MoP mechanics, expertise took dodges and parries off up to softcap, at which point there was no more dodge to take off and it continued to take parries off at the same rate as before, which suggests a very obvious inflection point.

The MoP implementation of expertise is that it only removes dodges up to 7.5%, then starts removing parry after 7.5%, all at exactly the same rate. There is no pre-softcap double-dip zone for dodge and parry, it's all the same all the way to hardcap with respect to the number of failed combat table resolutions converted to successful ones.

i see - thanks for clarification. this sucks a bit then as i see there is no soft cap for tanks anymore. qq etc

EDIT: ill go confirm this on my character sheet this weekend by reforging around a bit (not that i dont believe you but I'll need to see that this is how it works now for myself).

On another point i dont think blizz made this change to how expertise particularly obvious - was there a blue post about expertise change anywhere anyone know?

i see - thanks for clarification. this sucks a bit then as i see there is no soft cap for tanks anymore. qq etc

The soft cap still sort of exists in a roundabout way for tanks, in the sense that 7.5% hit + 7.5% expertise hardcaps spell hit, but having capped spell hit specifically has no interaction with any survival-related mechanics.

---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 09:58 AM ----------

Originally Posted by rawhammer

On another point i dont think blizz made this change to how expertise particularly obvious - was there a blue post about expertise change anywhere anyone know?

The soft cap still sort of exists in a roundabout way for tanks, in the sense that 7.5% hit + 7.5% expertise hardcaps spell hit, but having capped spell hit specifically has no interaction with any survival-related mechanics.

Please replace "whilst" with "while": they are not perfect synonyms and you have only used it correctly a grand total of once. It was an otherwise good guide. Unfortunately it seems like a lot of the choices for gyphs (etc.) are opinions that aren't backed up by theorycrafting, however.

Ask yourself a question: 'How have I made the world a better place today?'.

If your answer isn't legitimate, or meaningful: TRY HARDER - YOU ARE FAILING AT RL!

Please replace "whilst" with "while": they are not perfect synonyms and you have only used it correctly a grand total of once. It was an otherwise good guide. Unfortunately it seems like a lot of the choices for gyphs (etc.) are opinions that aren't backed up by theorycrafting, however.

Actually, in the Queens English and British English, they are synonymous. In American English, this died out and they aren't. Seeing as I'm English, it's therefore correct

In standard British English and Australian English, whilst, as a conjunction, is synonymous with although, whereas, but or while. Unlike whilst, while is also used as a noun (as in "rest for a while").

The usage of 'whilst' is chiefly British.[4] For example, the BBC World Service website 'Learning English', in their 'Ask about English' section, uses the word whilst when explaining the usage of 'while and whereas'.[5]

In American English and Canadian English, whilst is considered to be pretentious or archaic

As for the glyphs, I will look into them but although I've not done the maths, the suggested/predicted ones are actually complementary to what people are using on live, so although it doesn't have the theorycrafting in there, it's not actually incorrect. For now at least. Should things change at level 90 then it will be altered accordingly.

Please replace "whilst" with "while": they are not perfect synonyms and you have only used it correctly a grand total of once. It was an otherwise good guide.

There are different levels of English on this board.

As English is not everyone's native language, we ask you to not correct other people's posts unless you are asked to. Do not quote dictionary entries for the sake of arguing. Don't be the grammar police.

American English, Australian English, English English, Queens English, Chav English, Cockney English, Engrish, Spangirsh... So many different types It's inevitable that things like that happen with words dieing out in some places and taking on different meanings. If you aren't over the age of 15 in England or born within the sound of the bells at St Mary Le Bow church, you wouldn't know what I meant when I said "Having a sneaky Barclays". Partially why it's so awesome

Ok, I havent read every post in this thread but I just want to throw out here that mastery will give you bigger heals from WoG.

Tested on dummy last night. Found it strange that some times I had a proc on it saying next WoG will heal you for 235%(maybe more, can't remember exactly). After further tests, I noticed it actually got bigger with (mastery)proc from trinket!
Reason is that mastery gives SotR bigger dmg reduce, BUT also gives BIGGER stacks on Bastion of Glory. If you already have 5 stacks without a mastery proc, and then the trinket procs; your 5 stacks will be modified for each stacks already gained, so you can crit heal for MORE than your full health! Without buff when testing on dummy, I got crit heal as high as 190k! That is basically a Lay on Hands!!

Note: trying to watch this proc to get highest heal is not advisable , as you will use WoG whenever you get low on health, and not when you get mastery proc(if you have trinket with mastery proc or anything else that gives mastery proc). Just a fun fact ^^

i'm struggling with my reforges. you're saying that an item that doesn't have parry should be reforged towards as much parry as possible. does that mean that an item with 400 dodge and 150 mastery should be reforged dodge->parry, even if you don't have 16% dodge yet?

Don't worry about that for now. Right now it's very difficult but come MOP, we will be getting double the amounts of secondary stats as we do now on gems and enchants and things. This will ease the balancing of dodge/parry and so on so forth. The gear you have right now is optimized for Cata style percentages so it doesn't work with the new system. When we get to MOP it should hopefully smooth out. If not then God help us all.

In reality, it's a balancing act between dodge and parry, the reforging bit is to maximise stat values and we will not have this issue come MOP. I will dig up a macro but Theck has made a script to help you balance Dodge and Parry best to maximize the stats and minimize the diminishing returns. Don't worry about it for now though in terms of stats For example, check my armory, I have like 11% dodge and 28% parry I think.

It just means that Divine Purpose only gets one chance to proc per cast, instead of having a chance to proc off of each target hit by Divine Storm and Light of Dawn. It can definitely still chain proc.

In fact they just postet a statment that they removed a bug that made the chance for chain procs lower than it should be - so we can be pretty sure chain procs are intended.

I did notice a sudden drop in chain procs recently. Maybe I can chalk it up to bad RNG.

Depends on what finisher you were using. WoG had two chances to proc before the fix, so if you were using that then the chain proc chance should have dropped. Otherwise it should've gone up or stayed the same (so just RNG).

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or discussed before so I'm willing to ask if there is anyone who knows what a decent rotation for Prot should look like, specifically in ClcProt, since its default priority system seems to be tweaked a little.

Originally Posted by Jonuts

Pretty sad when being deathgripped is my most reliable gap closer! THAT is some BS too.

The rotation is based on a 9GCD cycle :
Crusader Strike -> Judgement -> X -> Crusader Strike -> X -> Judgement -> Crusader strike -> X -> X
With X being whatever's up of Avenger Shield -> Consecration -> Holy Wrath.Note: even if you get an Avenger shield proc, do not delay CS or J for it, just wait for the next open GCD (X) and use it there.

Originally Posted by Goatfish

the average wow player is only a step above eating glue and a step below doing basic addition. Right about being able to operate scissors fairly properly is the sweet spot.

If I'm going to beat Ayashi to these, I need to stop going to the pub and showering in the morning. Morning for me being 10am, when I wake up. I have 90mins now before I go out again, going to make those alterations I said I'd do days ago.

EDIT: Rotation added, I know I said I'd do the updates now but I've just been invited to go and see Killing Them Softly so I'm off to see that so I'm going out a little earlier than planned. I will DEFINITELY update the stat priority to seperate the "Mitigation, Avoidance and Spell" categories and then perhaps make a blend between the lot of them to indicate what may or may not work. Will do it when I get back, promise.